Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 079

Monday, January 19 2004

• Re: King David's dilemma - was Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• Re: Wording in Avos
• Re: 2 tfillin questions
• Re: 10 Tevet
• Re: Wording in Avos
• Re: 2 tfillin questions
• RE: No requirement to believe in miracle of oil
• King David's dilemma - was Mrs. Cohen's dilemma
• RAEK files available
• Mi she'asa nisim
• Maaseh Bereishis - comments?
• Re: Mi she'asa nisim
• Re: nihyeh vs. niyhah
• Re: nihyeh vs. niyhah
• elusive quote
• Re: 2 tfillin questions

On 14 Jan 2004 at 20:59, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
> If you read the story it becomes clear that Dovid
> called Uriah back from the military campaign in Ammon after Bat Sheva
> sent word that she had become pregnant by the king. Regardless of how one
> goes about rationalizing away the adultery aspect of the king's behavior
> (it is clear from Tehillim that even after teshuva, Dovid does not
> acknowledge that he committed adultery), this summoning of Uriah smacks
> of an attempted cover-up....

> His refusal is both categorical and even down-putting. Even getting him
> drunk does no good. Dovid's apparent anger with himself on getting into
> such a situation is transferred to the irate husband, and he sends him
> back to battle with a sealed letter to the commander to bring Uriah
> to the front line and then abandon him to his fate. The only saving
> grace to this seemingly sordid tale is the way that Dovid accepts the
> subsequent tongue lashing by the prophet and his subsequent punishments....

Rav Nebenzahl's basic argument is that it could not have been adultery
because:

1. The Gemara says that David didn't sin.

2. Uriah had given Batsheva a get as did all soldiers in David's army,
and Batsheva was therefore divorced.

3. Even if you hold that she wasn't divorced (it's a machlokes in the
Gemara), David had relations with Batsheva KNOWING that it was likely she
would become pregnant (from the placement of the words "v'hi miskadeshes
mi'tum'asa" in 11:4). If she was assur to him, why would David have
had relations with her immediately after she went to mikve - the time
that we all know is the time when a woman is most fertile? Remember,
this is David HaMelech and not a plain person!

4. If the relationship had been adulterous, the child would have been
a mamzer and a constant reminder to David of his aveira. And yet, it's
clear that child's death was a punishment to David.

5. As you point out above, David "never admits that he committed
adultery." And yet, his tshuva was clearly accepted! What was David's
tshuva? When Nasan HaNavi is mochiach him, David says "chatasi
la'HASHEM." David only did an aveira in Hashem's eyes. Adultery would
also have been an aveira in human eyes!

6. If David had committed adultery, Batsheva would have been assur to
him AFTER Uriah died too. Assura l'ba'al, assura l'bo'el when a woman
engages in an adulterous relationship. But Nasan doesn't even SUGGEST
that David can't stay married to Batsheva.

7. Given item 6, if it had been an aveira, how could Hashem make the
mlucha come specifically from Shlomo? And it's clear that the mlucha
was meant to come to Shlomo and not from Avshalom or Adoniyahu!

There's more to the argument (mostly treating the other side - why
Uriah had a din of moreid b'malchus). But I'll leave that for another
time. It's 1:30 AM and I still owe you all the third installment of the
Asara b'Teves shiur (not tonight I'm afraid).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

In a message dated 1/15/04 5:11:37 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I therefore assumed ... that "X hayah omeir" was an aphorism the tanna
> used frequently, and is therefore more central to tanna X's worldview
> than a simple "amar".

Yes, this is how the L. Rebbe Teitched it many times.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

According to R' Saul Newman and R' Gil Student, it seems that R'
Ya'akov Kamenetsky and R' YB Soloveitchik held that it is not kavodik
to wear one's jacket half-off because the tefillin shel yad won't fit
in the sleeve.

Baruch Shekivanti! For many years I've felt that it looks silly to wear
the jacket in that manner.

R' Carl Sherer asks <<< What do they suggest doing? ... is it better
(according to them) not to wear the jacket altogether? >>>

I'd love to hear what those (or other) gedolim answered. To me, the
logic is simple: If one feels that this manner of wearing a jacket is
not silly-looking, then of course it can/should be worn. But if one
feels that it *is* silly-looking (as RYK and RYBS seem to have felt)
then what's the havamina to wear it?

Similarly, while I personally agree that a suit jacket or sport jacket
*is* kavodik when worn properly (= both arms in sleeves), I emphatically
do *not* feel that way about a windbreaker or (aarghh!) a parka. These are
worn only for protection from the cold; no one wears them while inside a
properly heated building, except for certain Jews who seem to feel that it
is assur to daven while one's shirt is uncovered. (Yes, I daven in a plain
dress shirt when a respectable suit or sport jacket is not available.)

While we're on the topic, consider where a hat must be positioned on
a head which has tefillin on it. The hat is often so far back on the
head that it looks like it's about to fall off. Anyone other than me
who thinks it might be a good idea to forego the hat in such cases? (I
remember one Purim shpiel at Ohr Somayach which was interrupted by a
commercial for "3/4 hats", where the front of the hat was cut out to
neatly solve this problem!)

Akiva Miller

From: "SBA" 
> For those interested in understanding why this translation was considered
> as bad as the making of the eigel with the world being dark for 3 days,
> [according to the Yosifun, the translation created a KH !],- there is
> [at least one - maybe more] piece in Droshos CS for Ches Teves ayim shom.

Another source (which I have not yet seen) is the hakdomo to Tzelach
on Brochos.

SBA

In a message dated 01/15/2004 9:04:04 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:
>> I therefore assumed ... that "X hayah omeir" was an aphorism the tanna
>> used frequently, and is therefore more central to tanna X's worldview
>> than a simple "amar".
 
>  Yes, this is how the L. Rebbe Teitched it many times.
 
Is this synonomous with Margela bpumei?

KT
Joel Rich

> 1- I heard in a drasha that [RYBS] held that wearing ones coat half-on
> as many people do with their tfillin on is not derech kavod. Does any
> one else hold that way?

Yes :-). Now if you mean are there any other g'dolim on record as
opposing a partly-on jacket, I don't know, but fulfilling "da lifnai
Mi atah omaid" in such a way seems a clear violation of the 5th chailek
of SA (I would think a melech bosor vodom would forgive no jacket more
readily than a half-on jacket unless the latter's wearer was b'onais,
kal vochomer MMhM).

CSherer asked:
> What do they suggest doing? Putting the arm with the tefillin back in
> the sleeve? What if it won't fit? Is it better to button the jacket with
> the arm with the tefillin out of the jacket, or is it better (accordingto
> them) not to wear the jacket altogether?

Where I came from, you wore a jacket whose sleeve the TshY's box would
fit into; if, for whatever reason, I wasn't planning to wear such a
jacket to weekday Shacharis, I took whatever I _was_ wearing off before
wrapping myself in my talis.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

The thread regarding the Nes Hashemen of Chanukah has been going on for
some time. What nobody has pointed out is that all this is a reprise of
a hullabaloo which occurred in Poland around 1890.

Chaim Zelig Slonminski (d. 1904) besides being a maskil polymath,
mathematician, science populariser and head of a rabbinical college
(in Zhitomer ?) was the editor of the periodical Ha-Zephirah. He was
generally considered to be a traditionalist and was on friendly terms with
the Netziv - at least according to the latter's nephew, the Torah Temimah.

In an article in his magazine he argued that the Nes Hashemen was little
better that a myth. The ensuing storm saw the publication of many articles
attacking his thesis and its author. These included a work entitled
Emunas Chachomim (Wilna 1891) by a Rabbi DovBerish Yehudah Gunzberg.

Elozor Reich

> Some comments on Avodah concerning Uriah the Hittite's rejection of a
> command by his king suggest that the actual story in Nach has not been
> looked at carefully. If you read the story it becomes clear that Dovid
> called Uriah back from the military campaign in Ammon after Bat Sheva
> sent word that she had become pregnant by the king....
>                                          this summoning of Uriah smacks
> of an attempted cover-up. Uriah would go home to his wife as ordered
> and when the baby is born some 6 months later people would assume that
> Uriah was the father (at least that was Dovid's hope). However, Uriah,
> who had likely heard the rumor of Bat Sheva being summoned to the king's
> quarters, refuses to play along with this scheme.

> His refusal is both categorical and even down-putting. Even getting him
> drunk does no good. Dovid's apparent anger with himself on getting into
> such a situation is transferred to the irate husband...

Your reading of the story is certainly legitimate and one that many
contemporary commentators adopt (f.e. Steinberg). However, this story
is very complex with many under the surface currents and some of the
other comments are in fact informed (now or recollected)expressions of
legitimate interpretations. For those who have the time, I suggest Yakov
Meidan's book Dovid and Batsheva in Hebrew published by Herzlia Teachers
Seminary (one of the foremost centers for religious Tanach study) for an
unharried and comprehensive exploration of this entire complex narrative.

M. Levin

In order to be mehaneh a certain adam gadol of my acquaintance, I scanned
RAEK's poems, Hebrew and Yiddish and cc'd Reb Micha B. (forgive the
amateur scanning!). He has graciously made the files (.jpg's) available
in the RAEK directory, which now includes:

    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/yirah.pdf		Be'Ikvos haYir'ah
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/2derachim.pdf		Shtei Derakhim
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/2shehein1.pdf		Shtayim Shehein Achas
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/shirim.pdf		Tefilah, Zimri, Layeshiva
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/shaka.jpg		Shaka Chama
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/zimri-yeshiva.jpg	Zimri, LaYeshiva
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/bshomi.jpg		bshomi
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/ulai.jpg		ulai
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/ulai2.jpg		ulai2
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/ulai3-lador.jpg	ulai3-lador
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/haera-krach.jpg	haera-krach
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/sifdu-barchu.jpg	sifdu-barchu
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/barchu2.jpg		barchu2
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/geloibt.jpg		geloibt
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/geloibt2.jpg		geloibt2
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/geloibt3-hoht.jpg	geloibt3-hoht
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/hoht2-dort.jpg	hoht2-dort
    * http://www.aishdas.org/raek/dort2-ahin.jpg	dort2-ahin

If you want something especially uplifting for Shabbos reading, download 
some of the poem files!

Kol Tuv and Good Shabbos,
YGB  

We say

1.Mi she'asa nisim la'avosenu
2. vega'al osam me'avdus lecherus

Hu yig'al osanu bekarov.

Why do we mention nissim if we're not asking for them?  Why does it not
say either

"Hu ya'aseh lanu nissim veyig'al osanu..."

or

Mi shega'al es avosenu me'avdus lecherus hu yig'al osanu?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rav Tzadok (Likutei Amarim 8): ...There is also wisdom to be found
amongst the scholars of the nations as is stated in Eicha Rabbah(2:13)
: If a person should tell you that there is wisdom amongst the nations
-- believe it.... But if he tells you that there is Torah amongst the
nations -- don't believe it. However the Avodas Hakodesh and others
have criticized the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 1:17) for saying that
Maaseh Bereishis is natural science and Maaseh Merkavah is metaphysics.
They assert that that would mean that Aristotle and other sages of the
nations would be as knowledgeable in these esoteric areas as the Jewish
prophets! In fact there is no basis for criticizing the Rambam since
the sages of the nations do have true wisdom. The difference between the
wisdom of the Jews and that of the nations lies in the reaction of the
heart. Their knowledge is not felt in the heart and it doesn't provide
guidance. In contrast the wisdom of the Jews is called Torah because
the Chariot of Yechezkeil is intimately tied to the understanding of
the heart. This is explained in Megila (24b) that the main thing is the
feeling of the heart in the light of G-d. This impact of wisdom on the
heart is not found amongst the nations at all but only amongst the Jews.
That is because G-d is the heart of Israel (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 5:2).
Thus Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah and the esoteric secrets of
the activities of creation in all aspects of wisdom become holy wisdom
only from the study by Jews. When the nations study the same thing it
becomes merely secular and natural knowledge. Only because the Jewish
perception of this knowledge comes from a heart striving to perceive
the truth of G-d -- does it becomes something totally different than
the secular knowledge of the nations.

[Hebrew text deleted. I am working on getting the digest to be
Hebrew friendly. But it's a major job. -mi]

On 18 Jan 2004 at 8:19, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 1.Mi she'asa nisim la'avosenu
> 2. vega'al osam me'avdus lecherus
> Hu yig'al osanu bekarov.
> Why do we mention nissim if we're not asking for them?  Why does it
> not say either

I understood this as our assuming that the ge'ula ha'asida will only 
come through nissim. 

 - Carl

At Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:05:27 +0200, D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> 
stated the following:
>Those who do not make a b'rakha on that hallel are excused from this last 
>exercise.

Not on yomtov and hanukka, they're not!  (Except shevi`i shel Pessah.)

And that reminds me of those people who translate Yiddish into Hebrew
and say "la`asot berakha," or "la`asot havdala," rather than levarekh
and lehavdil.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

At Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:05:27 +0200, D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> 
stated the following:
>Rosh Hodesh, check on the correction started some two hundred years ago in 
>siddurim from likro et hallel to et hahallel.

The sefardim say, when they do at all, ligmor et HAhallel. Do your
objection and charge of rewriting apply to them too?

And I wonder if liqro et hallel doesn't remind one of "netz" hahama
rather than hanetz hahamma?

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

Can anyone give me a makor for:  "Adam nolad lehipared."?  

Thanks.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

>>>1- I heard in a drasha that [RYBS] held that wearing
>>>ones coat half-on as many people do with their tfillin
>>>on is not derech kavod. Does any one else hold that way?

>> I heard the same in the name of R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky.

> What do they suggest doing? Putting the arm with the tefillin back in
> the sleeve? What if it won't fit? Is it better to button the jacket with
> the arm with the tefillin out of the jacket, or is it better (according
> to them) not to wear the jacket altogether?

Why not just wear the jacket draped over the arm with the tefilin?  This
seems to work for me (except when doing hagba, when I button the jacket
so that it does not fall off).

KT
Aryeh   

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]